Sheffield City Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in Sheffield?
See which parking and access concerns counted against selected proposals, and what helped allowed examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 122
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 10
- of 10 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Sheffield LPA (53.393412, −1.486964). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Sheffield City Council appeal findings
Sheffield dropped kerbs, parking and pedestrian conflict
The selected examples include more allowed appeals than the matched local set, and appeal 87175 also includes a conservation-area issue.
Counted against appeals
Parking loss and hard surfacing
Surfaced garden and verge
Replacing the front garden and verge with surfacing was said to harm the area and add to highway-safety concerns.
Lost on-street parking
Creating a private space would remove a locally available on-street space, to the detriment of public parking provision.
Helped or needed
Safe access and pedestrian conflict
No vehicle-pedestrian conflict
The proposed car parking was found not to lead to highway or pedestrian conflict.
Safe access and parking
The proposal was found not to materially harm highway safety. The cited requirements included safe access and off-street parking.
Underlying guidance met
Although it did not fully accord with the SPD, the proposal was found to align with guidance to avoid adverse highway-safety effects.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify an access, parking or pedestrian conflict?
- Would your driveway remove an on-street space or front garden?
- What evidence shows vehicles and pedestrians can use the access safely?
The displayed highway text for appeal 87175 is only a general Framework statement. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
3 examples
2 November 2021 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
“Demolish outbuildings, erect new extension for disabled relatives, form garage at street level and landscaping works”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The one main issue is the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I favour a pragmatic approach and conclude that the proposal would not materially harm highway safety. As such, I find no conflict with UDP Policy H14 (d), which requires proposals to provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking, advice in the SPG, or Government policy in paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework, (the Framework) which says developments should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
21 February 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘planning permission required for new drive drop kerb’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development upon highway safety.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The development does not fully accord with the SPD. However, this document contains guidance and does not set mandatory policy standards. For the reasons set out, I am satisfied that the proposal aligns with the underlying guidelines in the SPG to avoid adverse effects on highway safety. It follows that there is no conflict with national policy in the Framework which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway safety grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
4 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Proposed rear extension extending out 4m’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed works on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on highway safety.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the frontage alterations would not harm the character and appearance of this part of [address] or erode its distinctive character. The proposed car parking would not lead to highway or pedestrian conflict. The proposed development is not therefore contrary to [name] BE5 and H14; and Guidelines 1, 2 and 8 of the SPG which in summary require development to be compatible with the character and built form of the surrounding area, including where there would be a loss of front garden space to provide more parking space.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
6 May 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a dropped kerb.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The loss of this front garden and the verge to surfacing would detract from the appearance of this house. If repeated, this would significantly alter the character of this area, to its detriment. I am mindful also that the proposal, whilst providing a private parking space, would result in the loss of an on-street parking space, to the detriment of publicly available parking provision locally. Overall, the proposal would add to highway safety concerns and the unsatisfactory amount of space available would represent poor design, as would the replacement of the front lawn and verge with hard surfacing. It would therefore conflict with policy H14d of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 which requires safe access to the highway network. I also find conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 which seeks development that functions well and adds to the overall quality of the area.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
9 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an alteration of boundary wall for installation of single car driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed access on highway safety; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Fulwood Conservation Area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Additionally, I have had due regard to the Framework which indicates that development should be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2